RC Discussion - Special Case [Betterment of the league] (RC Members Only Please)

[Flash]

I don't profess to have the solution to this problem but I have to say that I disagree with Flash's assessment.I will agree that any choice that is made at this point will almost certainly be subjective but I find a lot of fault with his reasoning.
According to this logic we need not even play the game; tie a bow around it and give it to the Yankees. As far as I know they've got the highest payroll. At the very least $53.5M more than mine.They'd play the aforementioned Cubs at $142.5 in the World Payroll Series and undoubtedly win because of the $46.5M salary difference between them and the Cubs.
But we all know that neither the Yankees nor the Cubs made our playoffs this year.
So while success may equal money (to paraphrase Flash), money doesn't necessarily equal success. IMO success in this league equals an understanding of the rules and scoring system, a decent eye for talent and mix in some savvy in trade negotiations. A little dedication doesn't hurt either.  I'm just not sure how to quantify those qualities

I think you have mistaken the gist of my post.  As you point out, in order to be successful in this league, you have to have "an understanding of the rules and scoring system".  I am a testament to that.  That's why I alluded to my own shortcomings--it's taken me a while to figure things out and get away from the Yahoo mentality I came in with.  But I don't want to engage in anymore self-flagellation.  I agree with your other points regarding talent, dedication and savvy.

However, my point about success = money was only a reference to the fact that the salary caps we have are based on the past success of our teams.  Didn't I make the following point:  Is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources?  You are actually reinforcing my perspective on this point.  The fact that the Yankees and Cubs, teams with large payrolls didn't make the playoffs is worth noting, but it doesn't address the issue at hand.

One of those teams is now vacant, and the other was the subject of the very dilemma we now face, and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down in a series of posts that sidestep what we are trying to accomplish.  In addition, we have another vacant team (Chicago White Sox) that needs a new GM.  I'm not complaining about the salary cap differences and I'm certainly not trying to say that money is a substitute for expertise.  The controversy surrounding the Dodgers change in ownership illustrates why it's necessary to come up with something that is viable and sustaining.  The Rules Committee cannot deal in vague generalities anymore when it comes to a transfer of ownership.  Since the team in question has a lot of resources and didn't make the playoffs, don't you think it would be a good idea for any GM who is requesting a transfer to outline how he is going to rectify that and why he is worthy of our support?  As a body, we voted to allow transfers on the basis that it was for "the good of the league" and now we need to get on with that task. 

I believe in this league.  It's unique and challenging, but more importantly, it's filled with a lot of good people.  I don't want anyone to think I'm tripping because I'm on the Rules Committee or that I think I'm so important. All of you know that I voted against transfers, but since we agreed to allow them, I think it's time to sit down and present something to the league that is acceptable.  In an effort to do just that, by the end of the weekend I will submit a draft of something I think might work.  As always, it can be tweaked or simply thrown away if the rest of the Committee can't get behind it.  However, it's time for us to get it done so we can get a GM for the Cubs (and White Sox.) 

Again, I'm not looking to antagonize anyone.  If I've struck a nerve or offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies.  If needed, send me a poison PM and tell me to jump in the lake. 

 :toth: 

[BHows]

I think you have mistaken the gist of my post.  As you point out, in order to be successful in this league, you have to have "an understanding of the rules and scoring system".  I am a testament to that.  That's why I alluded to my own shortcomings--it's taken me a while to figure things out and get away from the Yahoo mentality I came in with.  But I don't want to engage in anymore self-flagellation.  I agree with your other points regarding talent, dedication and savvy.

However, my point about success = money was only a reference to the fact that the salary caps we have are based on the past success of our teams.  Didn't I make the following point:  Is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources?  You are actually reinforcing my perspective on this point.  The fact that the Yankees and Cubs, teams with large payrolls didn't make the playoffs is worth noting, but it doesn't address the issue at hand.

One of those teams is now vacant, and the other was the subject of the very dilemma we now face, and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down in a series of posts that sidestep what we are trying to accomplish.  In addition, we have another vacant team (Chicago White Sox) that needs a new GM.  I'm not complaining about the salary cap differences and I'm certainly not trying to say that money is a substitute for expertise.  The controversy surrounding the Dodgers change in ownership illustrates why it's necessary to come up with something that is viable and sustaining.  The Rules Committee cannot deal in vague generalities anymore when it comes to a transfer of ownership.  Since the team in question has a lot of resources and didn't make the playoffs, don't you think it would be a good idea for any GM who is requesting a transfer to outline how he is going to rectify that and why he is worthy of our support?  As a body, we voted to allow transfers on the basis that it was for "the good of the league" and now we need to get on with that task. 

I believe in this league.  It's unique and challenging, but more importantly, it's filled with a lot of good people.  I don't want anyone to think I'm tripping because I'm on the Rules Committee or that I think I'm so important. All of you know that I voted against transfers, but since we agreed to allow them, I think it's time to sit down and present something to the league that is acceptable.  In an effort to do just that, by the end of the weekend I will submit a draft of something I think might work.  As always, it can be tweaked or simply thrown away if the rest of the Committee can't get behind it.  However, it's time for us to get it done so we can get a GM for the Cubs (and White Sox.) 

Again, I'm not looking to antagonize anyone.  If I've struck a nerve or offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies.  If needed, send me a poison PM and tell me to jump in the lake. 

 :toth:

There was no struck nerve here Ernesto. I just wanted to point out (or reemphasize if you like) that patience, prudence and dedication are the rules in a franchise league such as FGM. Especially for a small market team. How do you go about determining that a prospective GM has those qualities? Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page.

[Colby]

Seven (7) elements we can judge transfers on:

1) Quality of prospects - who has the best farm?

2) Performance against expectations - if a team had the 27th highest payroll and the finished 22nd that that is a +5, how did the other team do? Another unique way to measure this is look at percentage increase in future caps.

3) Tenure of service with their current team

4) Short term and long term strategy for the team they want

5) Number of posts - shows an element of activity

6) Any FGM awards? GM of the Year candidates should be shoe-ins.

7) Performance of franchise last season

Only #4 is subjective and voted by the RC whereas the rest are scored.

[rcankosy]

Are we not getting off topic?  It seems as if we are discussing criterion by which to rate GMs requesting a franchise transfer, rather than voting on the criterion for the transfer.

[BHows]

I was under the impression that Internal Transfers are now allowed:
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=115022.10
Please correct me if I'm wrong

[rcankosy]

That's correct, but I am still in favor of making these transfers exceedingly rare to the tune of 1 every 3-4 years at most.  To that point, I am only in  favor of allowing them as a last resort to filling teams that are vacant for 3 months.

[Flash]

Seven (7) elements we can judge transfers on:

1) Quality of prospects - who has the best farm?

2) Performance against expectations - if a team had the 27th highest payroll and the finished 22nd that that is a +5, how did the other team do? Another unique way to measure this is look at percentage increase in future caps.

3) Tenure of service with their current team

4) Short term and long term strategy for the team they want

5) Number of posts - shows an element of activity

6) Any FGM awards? GM of the Year candidates should be shoe-ins.

7) Performance of franchise last season

Only #4 is subjective and voted by the RC whereas the rest are scored.

I think this is a pretty good list of indicators, although I don't necessarily think #5 is a necessary element.  I would also like to have a GM requesting a transfer submit a short explanation why granting the transfer is in the best interest of the league.  Obviously this becomes more subjective than the points Colby listed, but if someone believes such a transfer is important, they should be able to provide some coherent rationale.

As for Roy's concerns, I don't think we should allow a team to lie dormant for a long period of time.  Nor do I think we should rush ourselves and simply accept a warm body to fill a vacancy.  If it's important for a GM to be a part of this league, like it is for all of us, it should require some work to be accepted as a member. 

With this, I think new GMs should also present an application that includes an analysis that includes an evaluation of the team's roster in terms of strengths and weaknesses (#2, #4 & #7), it's EDRs (#1), and their experience with fantasy baseball contract leagues (#3 & #5).  They should also provide an explanation why they would like to be accepted into the league. 

Maybe some GMs think this will be too much work, and if that's the case, it's a good indication that their transfer or acceptance isn't really warranted.

[papps]

I think this is a pretty good list of indicators, although I don't necessarily think #5 is a necessary element.  I would also like to have a GM requesting a transfer submit a short explanation why granting the transfer is in the best interest of the league.  Obviously this becomes more subjective than the points Colby listed, but if someone believes such a transfer is important, they should be able to provide some coherent rationale.

As for Roy's concerns, I don't think we should allow a team to lie dormant for a long period of time.  Nor do I think we should rush ourselves and simply accept a warm body to fill a vacancy.  If it's important for a GM to be a part of this league, like it is for all of us, it should require some work to be accepted as a member. 

With this, I think new GMs should also present an application that includes an analysis that includes an evaluation of the team's roster in terms of strengths and weaknesses (#2, #4 & #7), it's EDRs (#1), and their experience with fantasy baseball contract leagues (#3 & #5).  They should also provide an explanation why they would like to be accepted into the league. 

Maybe some GMs think this will be too much work, and if that's the case, it's a good indication that their transfer or acceptance isn't really warranted.

I agree with this entire post.

[VolsRaysBucs]

Very well said Flash!

[shooter47]

This discussion has lead to some good points about how to judge potential GM's who request a transfer but is starting to get off topic. We need to determine what situation must occur that would make it possible for a GM to transfer. So far the RC has only passed the case of "for the betterment of the league." This is pretty vague and we need to define what this situation actually is. The RC did not vote to allow internal transfers in all cases.

When I joined the league FGM used a process where GM's applied for an open position and then a vote was held to determine which GM got the position. This worked well however this process can be subjective and can lead to hurt feelings.

I would like to get this issue resolved quickly so we can fill the open positions of the Chicago White Sox and Cubs and get on with the offseason.